MMO's should target smaller player-bases. If an MMO can be successfull with 200k sub/players, it can work to keep those players happy instead of massing the millions.

This is a great list but the #1 thing that has to change in my honest opinion is Developers need to be encouraged to take chances and try new things. We are seeing some of this now with games like GW2, Tera, TSW and ArcheAge but this trend should be pushed even further. The main problem with the MMO genre as a whole is it's become terribly stagnant in the last 8 years. Every game that comes out year after year seems to be the same game just with a new paintjob and a slightly different back story.

If this genre is going to evolve these big Development houses need to realize that making the same game over and over just isnt going to cut it anymore. They need to realize that to compete with or even beat WoW they need to come up with something that is radically different than WoW and better in many ways. People aren't going to leave WoW to play a similar game with a pretty new paint job.

Bren

Originally posted by marz.at.play

Only if the cash shop makes sense. Most F2P games are a turn off while others are welcome. Prime example Age of Conan = total turn off and Aion = perfect F2P model.

True, While not really an MMO the World of Tanks Microtransactions system is quite good and I think something that can be applied accorss any games looking to go microtrans/F2P as a way of doing it without trashing your game by making it Pay 2 Win.

F2P and microtransaction is here to stay and I do not mind that, what I mind is when publishers want to double dip. I think its repugnant when developers & publisher charge a monthly fee for the priveledge to play and then offer microtransactions (beyond purely cosmetic things) ontop of that. Players should treat this as what it is (penny pinching) and take their time & money elsewhere.

Sorry for not reading all of 6 pages...but I will add my own 2 cents.

1. F2P is not evil nor the universal cure. Let us clearly state where we have F2P and where we have P2W. Possible future is (unfortunately) P2W: our game is free, just Bloody Dungeon costs only 9 credits (and 1 credit is 1 $); you can have all the in-game armor, but Nice Light Cool Armor is only 15 credits. The future I would like to see is like Istaria: you gain access to anything, except housing.

2. Players must have their voice. It is enough enough to run my toon throughout game world, killing and questing, crafting and just relaxing. I want to influence universe like I can in real world. And it's not about "in-game power", like some MMORPGS are known to have. It's about if this NPC would be hostile towards me or not; would this town offer me support or perma-kill me? And would this NP-race talk to me at all? I don't want to be a watcher of cartoon - I want to be in a world.

3. I see future in a non-standard models. Having ultra-sexy Elves is just ultra-boring: give me Elves as non-sexy and non-players monster race. Give me a game where Orc are highly civilized non-green peacefull race. Give me a game where bow may break randomly or pistol may jam out of nowhere or Super Red Imperail Blaster Tank won't fire due to acumulators suddenly down.

4. Remove end-game content. There is no end-game as game ends with player's death/ban/account removal.

Originally posted by xaritscin

i would add a #6 the community has to change. these people wants all quicly and that cannot be, also they want to rush everything, you should calm down. its both for hardcore and casual players, how can someone finish a game in 30-80 hours?, its not only because of the unfinished state of the released game, its also a fault in the players. these games are about time, you cannot experience 100% in 2 hours, take it easy.

"endgame" has killed the gameplay.

I do agree with the endgame comment.. But, that's what you see from players, they want to know what the endgame will be, always. I hate raids, but that's what players expect. 

The gaming world is getting very competitive. Players don't want the same type of game repeated adnauseum. They will stick with WoW if that's what they want.

Reckoning was well done for what it was. But it isn't what gamers are looking for. The games that are trying to break the mold have better chances.  That is, except for the WoW group that likes that kind of gaming, but they will always return to WoW. And WoW knows it.

5. F2P. Worst thing ever happend to mmo world. Attract cheap people that do not care about anything but for free launches. They would like to eat but not pay.

I will add one more thing: BE ORIGINAL. Sure making an MMO that is familiar is ok, but add something new.... a twist. Stop carbon copying one that works, and add other things. Add more unique races or parts. Make more for the player to do, and use. Perfect World/Cryptic is a good example (especially Champions Online).

I add a new and rather controversial one to the list: the MMO industry needs some new blood, especially from the design development end. Their are too many frail (and undeserved) egos in the space and it is hurting the overall genre.

Too many of these games are born with the "I know better than my players" or worse "Players are a bunch of sheeples". This plagues the whole industry and is, in my opinion, more of the core reason for so many title failures than anything else.

Originally posted by Sora2810

MMO's should target smaller player-bases. If an MMO can be successfull with 200k sub/players, it can work to keep those players happy instead of massing the millions.

Yes, yes, yes. I've been saying this for years. Developers need to pick a target audience and tailor the experience precisely for that group. This leads to more diverstiy, and allows everyone to find a home in their niche. Chances are people would be happier, and would hopefully lead to less bitching on the whole.

The current development philosophy of 'one size fits all' is showing its age, and gamers and getting tired of it. Designing for the 'fictional' middle ground, does nothing but create a watered down game, which few like. As I said, developers should define a specific niche, and nail it.

Also, developers should stop trying to create an 'Epic' from the onset, in times past MMOs started small, and expanded once they got their legs, and it sure as hell didn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The criticism here is that most people anymore want instant gratification, and they want it all now. Well, you can have some now with more to come later, or you can have nothing now, your choice. Bitching about it, won't solve the problem.

Gamers are an enthusastic bunch for new releases, but if the game can't deliver on 'inovation', its clear to see that gamers bail fast.

It's time for something different, it's just time, and no, 'story' isn't going to get us there.

Hah nice snipe at EA :P, though it is widely known they are horse craptastic at this.

F2P.  I like the way bang on city of heroes does it, there is a sub option to access all and collect points every month to spend on the "extras". If you want to buy points to buy stuff they are cheap enough for the casual to pick up for what they are after.

I would dread to see what happens if EA cash shopped us.

My point is there is a right way and a wrong way and it will be very tempting for a developer to go the wrong way with $ signs in their eyes; EVE Hat anyone?

I see that mmorpg.com as usual are staying away from the controversal topic of ThemePark and WoW clones but for the genre to survive, any genre really, it has to renew itself. Creating ThemePark after ThemePark which all essentially play the same way with a little novlety here and there wont cut it. Eventually most people will realise it is the same thing which they have done before and stop buying into it.

I am not saying sandbox is the way to go but rather that the genre has to renew itself. It cannot stay stagnant like it has the last 5-6 years. And bringing single player features into an MMORPG is going the wrong way. They need to bring more multiplayer features to a massively multiplayer game, not single player one's.

Originally posted by Loke666

I do agree with most of Suzies points, but why do everyone think F2P will save the genre?

I don't think they do really... it just isn't a MMORPG.com article unless they reinforce how essential, 'unstoppable', and generally GREAT the model is.

Despite all this not being true.

(Have you ever seen a critical look here at the negative side of F2P? Or what it does to these games? Or any kind of exposure of the underhand tactics used? Have you even seen a balance to their column 'The Free Zone', which exists only to push F2P?)

Nothing is here 'if we like it or not', as Suzie wants to make us believe. As consumers we control and dictate the market, not the corperations. Right now though we have a lot of F2P promotion and right across the internet so a lot of folks are buying in to it.

But... I fully believe the F2P backlash is starting to kick in already, as folks start to see what it really means. I believe it will eventually hurt the the future of his genre more then help it.

Originally posted by Colage

I don't think I really agree with much of this article outside of #5. What do MMOs need to survive? Nothing. They're doing fine. There's no dark clouds on the horizon. Free to Play is part of that, everything else isn't.

4. Kickstarter is a joke. Any MMO that can be funded through Kickstarter isn't going to be something that you want to play. Double Fine is great, but when they're the talk of the town after raising a few million dollars, that's not something that will translate well. MMOs of a modest budget at today's standards are going to be into the 8 figures. Kickstarter won't get you there.

3 (and 2). "The publisher made me do it!" is a cop out. It's not as though waiting until a game "is done" is going to help its chances as an MMO. The nature of the genre is that it's not done. Part of the development process is releasing the game and seeing what breaks when more people than your friends and family play it. Furthermore, the point of making games is making money - that's what publishers know how to do. Development studios left to their own devices would, more often than not, turn out "The Homer" than some profound gaming experience.

1. I agree on the basic point, but again, I don't think you really understand the business side of things. Who can self-fund a MMO project? These take years and millions of dollars, and it's mostly on spec. If anything, we need _more_ studios - the cream naturally rises to the top. And don't be surprised if it's published by EA.

Ditto!!! 

This is a nice article from a gamers view but it takes money to pay the developers and that means investors. I don't agree with the OP - the MMO world is just fine. It is not. These layoffs are just the sea receding from the seashore before the tsunami comes in. With the perceived view that SWTOR was a failure, thus MMO's are not a good investment, you are going to see a lot more misery in the coming weeks. I will sympathize with those who lose their jobs, having been in the same situation three times in my career.

mmorpgs will die out if we dont get away from the endgame mentality and developers need to make a game that is designed from scratch to be a great game all the way through.  most games throw up a bunch of crap as content to get you to the max level where you can participate in the "real part of the game"  that less than 50 percent of the player population ever see. 

Endgame is a bunch of crap, its a stupid carrot that blizzard has been holding in front of their players faces for 7 years now, going on 8 to keep them buying subs.  yes it has worked for blizzard but every other game out there it has failed and failed hardcore, yet these tard developers wanna keep making the same type of game.

developers need to just make a fun game, and make it fun all the way through and quit following blizzard around trying to snatch the crumbs off their table.

1 Get away from end game mentality (as above poster said)

2 Less wow/ more innovation as many above posters have said

3 Pick a market and stop trying to please everyone as a few posters have said

4 Become more cost effective in development

5 Publisher input will improve as their data set grows (ie a record of what works and what doesnt, no I dont mean more wow clones I mean technical issues around development and resource allocation etc).

Nice article but I'm for P2P because I know that I'm only spending 15 dollars per month nothing more nothing less. In a F2F game is a lot of farming and grinding and that needs time and in my case, and other persons, I have job family so i don't have a lot of time spending in game. I'm not a kid anymore with a lot of time and no worries. So that one of the reasons that I prefere P2P games because you don't have to play 10 hours per day every day to gear up. Like some said 15 dollars per month is not a lot for something that i'm enjoying so I'm for P2P model. And olsy i like the idea B2P but without cashshop where you can buy items that gives you an advantage over other players.

#4 Kickstarter can help in theory

but I havent seen any mmo launch w the help of kickstarter yet

maybe mmos are too expensive for kickstarter ?

MMORPG's are in trouble, i believe.  But not from the publishers nor the designers.  The biggest problem(s) comes from the MMO gaming community.

Originally posted by jeeshadow

MMORPG's are in trouble, i believe.  But not from the publishers nor the designers.  The biggest problem(s) comes from the MMO gaming community.

Its not our fault Dev Companies make crappy games and  Publishers release them.

Though it IS our fault for buying them and funding the mediocrety